S.S. Sodhi, J. - The challenge here is to the complaint filed by the wife Sushma Rani against her husband, his parents and other relations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The marriage between the petitioner-Inderjit and respondent Sushma Rani took place on January 13, 1985. It appears that soon thereafter this marriage ran into rough weather culminating in a petition for divorce being filed against the wife by the husband-Inderjit Singh in the court of the District Judge, Ludhiana. On June 10, 1987, an ex-parte decree for divorce was granted to the petitioner-Inderjit Singh, on the ground of desertion.
3. Sushma Rani, on her part, lodged a report against the petitioners to the police on May 21, 1987 under the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging therein that the petitioners had misappropriated the dowry given to her at the time of her marriage. This first information report was, however, cancelled under the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police of June 6, 1987 (annexure P3), wherein, it was stated
"During investigation, it was revealed that civil litigations were pending between the parties in the courts and at the time of marriage, no marriage party (barat) visited Jamalpur. The marriage was performed in the Gurdwara of Mohalla Hargobindpur according to Anand Karaj. As per the statement of the Granthi, no dowry was given on marriage. The case has been falsely registered"
.
4. It was after the cancellation of the first information report lodged by the respondent-wife, that on November 10, 1986 she filed the present complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners here being the husband, his parents, sisters, brother's wife and brothers in law. This complaint is accompanied by a list of articles alleged to have been given as dowry to the wife at the time of marriage.
5. A plain reading of complaint would show that there are general allegations to the effect that the said articles of dowry were entrusted to the accused (that is the present petitioners) at the time of the marriage and that they had dishonestly converted them to their own use and had refused to return them. It is significant however, to note that there is no specific allegation in the complaint regarding the entrustment of any particular article of dowry to any particular person.
6. Further, it will be seen that in his impugned order summoning the petitioners, as accused, trial magistrate has not adverted to any evidence specifically implicating any of the petitioners in respect of any particular article of dowry.
7. Such being the situation here, the dragging-in of relations other than the husband and his parents is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. In matters relating to return of dowry, there is an element of sympathy for the unfortunate wife, but this must not be allowed to be dissipated by seeking to use it as an occasion to unnecessarily harass and humiliate relations on the husband's side who are not in any manner involved.
8. In the present case, the complaint against the petitioners-Parminder Kaur; Harjinder Singh; Ravinder Singh; Manmohan Singh; Balbir Kaur; Neelam and Sukhminder Kaur, as also the order summoning them as accused, cannot be sustained and are accordingly hereby quashed.
9. This petition is thus accepted to this extent.
Petition accepted.